FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » What's the big deal about state's rights?

   
Author Topic: What's the big deal about state's rights?
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I never really got the draw. I think the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed in ceding so much athority to the state. The states screwed up on slavery, such that Lincoln plunged the country into a war, then the states spent the next 130 years fumbling on integration and civil rights. Here is what I see: the states are run by mid-level white guys who aren't beholden to me, and the nation is run by high-level white guys who aren't beholden to me. But when given the choice, I'd trust the high level white guys because they had to go through a more rigorous process to get their position, so I'd like to think that the federal level legislators and executives are more morally engaged.

I don't mind a powerful local government, but state government? State boundaries are such arbitrary distinctions. If it's good for the state, it's probably good for America. Now I'm not deeply anti-state government, it's just that I can't really understand how some people can be such advocates for state rights, especially on broad moral issues like education, criminal justice, and civil rights.

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm of the oppinion when a state law grants greater freedom we should follow the state law. When a federal law grants greater freedom we should follow the federal law.

Yes, I *am* biased toward freedom.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I trust the state guy more because if he screws up, for instance, the eduation system, I can always move next door to another state where they're doing it right.

If the federal guy messes up our education system, I'm screwed.

Also, I have far less of a say in what happens on the federal level than what happens on the state level. I'd prefer that important issues like education be done on a level where there is more accountability to me.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
ļIn Canada anyways the distinction is made because culturally, the provinces developed in a distinctly different way from each other, why should education be as an example firmly decided by the Federal government which would in standardized textbooks gloss over or miss large segments of possibly important and or relevent history? In many ways it makes more sense to allcate logically powers to the provinces that they would be more suitable to doing effectively. As for the exact powers I am not aware of what the full list is only that education is a provincial power not a federal one.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HollowEarth
Member
Member # 2586

 - posted      Profile for HollowEarth   Email HollowEarth         Edit/Delete Post 
You do realize that the modern power distribution is no where near what it originally was between the state governments and the federal government?
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You do realize that the modern power distribution is no where near what it originally was between the state governments and the federal government?
Yes. The federal government has a greater power over the states since the Civil War, as evidenced by everything from Prohibition to the labor laws of the early 20th century, on through the civil rights legislation and even these faith based initiatives. I believe, if anything, the increased federal power is result of the fact that the original balance of powers was morally inadequate to deal with the problems of this nation.

quote:
Yes, I *am* biased toward freedom.
Freedom is tricky business. I think it acts more like a zero sum tradeoff than we are willing to admit. Curtaining one person's freedom in taxes gives another freedom in the name of economic opportunity. Constraining freedom in the name of campaign finance reform gives a greater expression to those other parties who would benefit from an equal playing field.

[ March 13, 2007, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Now I'm not deeply anti-state government, it's just that I can't really understand how some people can be such advocates for state rights, especially on broad moral issues like education, criminal justice, and civil rights.
I always understood the benefits for states' power derived from 2 ideas. The first being you have more political influence in state elections then you do on national elections.

Here in Utah we had problems of the federal government testing nukes in Nevada. The fallout hit the southern part of our state pretty good and it killed a lot of livestock. There is also a significant cancer problem down there.

The Day we Bombed Utah is a great book.

People used to sit on the roof and watch the tests. While America was paying money to Japan to compensate for the damage caused by the bomb, America was testing above ground close to population centers telling people it was safe.

Right now we have the federal government trying to dispose of nuclear waste in Utah, telling us it is safe. Because we have local representatives and a state constitution, we have more power to stop that process. However, it looks like we will just get money for permission.

The second benefit I understood is that by having strong state rights in something like education is that we can see and test different models of education. There is a competition of sorts that shows what works and what doesn't.

We really can move around fairly easily. Not all people. There are of course financial and social barriers, but a lot of people do decide what state to live in based on taxes, education, cost of living, et cetera.

I actually like the diversity factor of many states; however, last road trip I took was disappointing. All the cities looked the same. Wal*Mart, Mcdonalds, Best Buy, Home Depot, et cetera. It didn't feel like I left home.

EDIT for clarity

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't mind a powerful local government, but state government? State boundaries are such arbitrary distinctions. If it's good for the state, it's probably good for America.
I'm not sure this is the case, especially if an individual state's objections to a statute have nothing to do with its morality or constitutionality.

--j_k

Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
New cities really depress me just for that reason. So many towns I pass through have an identical plethora of chain restaurants and chain stores like those lem mentioned, and that's their town. Along with a smattering of identical bungalows. It's depressing. Where's our individuality?

I don't worry about it so much where I live, we have all those stores, but they are vastly outnumbered by independently owned restaurants, stores and other cultural icons that leave me unworried about my own city. But homoginization is scary to me. So much of the country is distinct from other parts of the whole. Doing away with states as individual identities I think just paves the way to make America one big bland country.

And beyond that, I love Michigan, I'm loyal to Michigan, and I would fight any effort made to take away Michigan's statehood. I can't explain it, it's just how I feel. My state loyalty isn't the kind of thing that Robert E. Lee felt to Virginia in 1860, but I do believe there's something special about my mitten and the yoopers. I think it's about roots. My family has been here for at least a hundred years. My great grandpa Hobart was asked to come speak in Detroit on behalf of the family when Garret Hobart was running for VP in 1896. We've moved from the farm, to the car factories, to the suburbs. I might have to leave here someday to get a job, but Michigan will always be home, and support a fairly wide berth for self determination when it comes to state government.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr.Funny
Member
Member # 4467

 - posted      Profile for Mr.Funny           Edit/Delete Post 
We only have half of lem's list here, and Home Depot only opened about a month ago.

McDonalds, of course, is essentially ubiquitous.

Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DevilDreamt
Member
Member # 10242

 - posted      Profile for DevilDreamt   Email DevilDreamt         Edit/Delete Post 
I enjoy the variety between states, and I support giving states more rights, not less. I very much like the idea that, if I don't want to live in a state, I can move somewhere in the US that is more to my likely.

Also, there is a simple division of powers to be considered, checks and balances, that sort of thing. If the federal government or state government gets corrupted (what are the odds?) that corruption, in theory, won't have as large of an impact as it would if we had all of the power in one entity.

Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Briefly, state governments are more accountable than federal governments - there are far fewer constituents per legislator at the state level. Further, there's no particular reason to think that the same policies are best for all states. Even outside the "best" calculation, there are citizen preferences to consider. Different citizens prefer different things, and outside a few areas, those preferences should be honored.

I would like domestic spending to be far more heavily concentrated in the states, with federal funds for coordination (to make sure the roads meet at the borders, etc.) and to make resource distribution more equal across states in some instances.

BTW, "state's rights" is the wrong term. Federalism is a right for us - the people - not the states. O'Connor wrote a good bit on this in a case in which the state government had basically ceded jurisdiction over something to the feds. This violated our rights to live under government in compliance with our chosen framework of government.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Now I'm not deeply anti-state government, it's just that I can't really understand how some people can be such advocates for state rights, especially on broad moral issues like education, criminal justice, and civil rights.
I want states to have individual rights ESPECIALLY on broad moral issues like education, criminal justice, and civil rights!

For one thing, let's not forget that there is no moral black and white. If there were, we wouldn't have so many different opinions on different issues. For example, on the basis of civil rights I am in favor of same sex unions, but many around here are not. I may think they are misguided, but I don't think they are immoral. They simply have different standards and use different reasoning. Moral ambiguity is the norm, not the exception, and I would prefer to be a part of a smaller unit working through the gray haze of right and wrong.

Second, when states act independently of one another it gives us a great opportunity to judge the outcomes of certain decisions. For example, the voucher system in education is something that many people advocate. I haven't made up my mind personally, but I find the idea intriguing, at least. But why argue this at a federal level and involve all 50 states? Let's let Florida or Colorado or Illinois try it out for a while and see how it goes. We can compare the results side by side with other education initiatives -- a
great experiment.

Finally, a few thousand people joined with me in electing my local representative to the Kansas State Legislature. I didn't get the person I wanted this last time, but she lost by a margin of a hundred votes and next time I may just help her campaign to see if we can scrape those votes out somehow. Even in a statewide senate race, I have precious little voice. Democracy (even representative democracy) works best on a smaller scale. On the federal level I often feel that we have more of an oligarchy, for better or worse.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I want states to have individual rights ESPECIALLY on broad moral issues like education, criminal justice, and civil rights!
Amen! The broader and fuzzier the issue, particularly the more important some people think it is, the more it should be left up to small, representative governments.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
'Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute!'

*shoots guns in air*
*yeehaws*

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Briefly, state governments are more accountable than federal governments - there are far fewer constituents per legislator at the state level. Further, there's no particular reason to think that the same policies are best for all states.
For complicated reasons, I think the federal government is more accountable than the state. It's not just about constituents per legislator, but rather, the federal legislators are under closer scrutiny. It's as if the state level offices are just big enough to be corrupted and bought, and just small enough to work in the shadows.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The big deal is that people can move pretty easily between states. If a state adopts policies that are significantly worse than those in other states, particularly nearby ones, people will move. Even if the politicians in the state are corrupt and control the voting booths, people can get up and leave.

Given that, I'd much rather states be the ones making most policies that directly affect me. It makes them far more accountable, even neglecting issues of voting.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For complicated reasons, I think the federal government is more accountable than the state. It's not just about constituents per legislator, but rather, the federal legislators are under closer scrutiny. It's as if the state level offices are just big enough to be corrupted and bought, and just small enough to work in the shadows.
First, if more power was pushed to the states, the state governments would have more press scrutiny. Second, the extra accountability is only their for certain types of things - splashy scandals, bridges to nowhere, etc. The bigger the budget, the easier to hide "small" excesses of "only" a few million dollars.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
First, if more power was pushed to the states, the state governments would have more press scrutiny. Second, the extra accountability is only their for certain types of things - splashy scandals, bridges to nowhere, etc.
It may just be a numbers game. There are too many people I have to influence. Between the city, county, state, and federal elected officials, I feel as though the state officials are the ones in a gray area.
I don't know what it is about the state legislature, but I get the feeling that one can buy, sell, or assume a state-wide seat much easier than it would be to get a federal or a city level position.

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
That's only because they're cheaper -- but that means more people can afford to fight whereas at the federal level the one who wins is, quite simply, the one with the most money.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure it's that simple at the federal level.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
If the federal guy messes up our education system, I'm screwed.

You could always make empty threats about moving to Canada. That seems to work for a lot of people.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Qaz
Member
Member # 10298

 - posted      Profile for Qaz           Edit/Delete Post 
Thinking backwards for a moment (not intending to be mean; it was just easier to think this way)...

The further away your leader is, and the more people you have to compete with to get his attention, the more likely he is to listen to you when you want something changed. It also helps if when he makes a decision you can't live with, you have no option to move away.

The process we have for picking candidates -- requiring them to raise huge amounts of money -- is also rendered more rigorous and more trustworthy if the required pile of cash goes from "huge" to "astronomical."

Finally, setting one policy for 300 million people provides more innovation than if you allow 50 or more different ways of solving a given problem.

Not!

Thinking forward again: here are some good reasons for federalism.

[ March 14, 2007, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]

Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Qaz:
Thinking backwards for a moment (not intending to be mean; it was just easier to think this way)...

The further away your leader is, and the more people you have to compete with to get his attention, the more likely he is to listen to you when you want something changed. It also helps if when he makes a decision you can't live with, you have no option to move away.

The process we have for picking candidates -- requiring them to raise huge amounts of money -- is also rendered more rigorous and more trustworthy if the required pile of cash goes from "huge" to "astronomical."

Finally, setting one policy for 300 million people provides more innovation than if you allow 50 or more different ways of solving a given problem.

Thinking forward again: here are some good reasons for federalism.

Er?

Ok, one at a time:

How, exactly, does it help you to be heard by a leader if you have more voices to shout over to be heard?

Why shouldn't I be able to move away if someone makes a decision about my life that I can't life with?

How does requiring more money make the process of selecting candidates more trustworthy? It seems like when large piles of cash are involved, you get into shady deals with special interest groups and hugely wealthy companies that are not in the best interests of everyone.

Finally, how does only having to come up with 1 solution provide more innovation than coming up with many different options? I think you may need to look up the definition of innovation -- competition tends to help this process, not hurt it. Also, it often arises out of a pool of ideas rather than just one.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The process we have for picking candidates -- requiring them to raise huge amounts of money -- is also rendered more rigorous and more trustworthy if the required pile of cash goes from "huge" to "astronomical."
I'm not so sure about that. While there are more people trying to find flaws and errors, there are also more people trying to cover them up.

quote:
Finally, how does only having to come up with 1 solution provide more innovation than coming up with many different options? I think you may need to look up the definition of innovation -- competition tends to help this process, not hurt it. Also, it often arises out of a pool of ideas rather than just one.
But with the federal system in charge, they can only really implement one idea at a time.

For most problems this country faces, we have scores of solutions, with an equal number of guesses as to whether that solution will work or not.

With the states in charge of it, different states can implement different solutions and we can see which ones work and which ones don't, instead of federally picking which one we think will work.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Qaz
Member
Member # 10298

 - posted      Profile for Qaz           Edit/Delete Post 
Sounds right to me. (Sorry I was unclear. "Thinking backward" meant "I'm being sarcastic -- centralization really does have some drawbacks and here they are." Since edited.)
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Whew!

Don't mind me...I'm terrible at spotting sarcasm under the best of circumstances. On the internet without the accompanying tone of voice... [Smile]

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2